If Vulcan Is Behind the Roy Situation

[OddEnormous]

You might be right about the knee... that's an unknown.

I feel FAR more certain about the way the new CBA is going to impact players and player movement... there's going to be a labor war, probably, and I honestly think that salaries are going to take a serious nerfing (in the owners' favor). Roy wants one more year under the "good" CBA and the Blazers don't want to give it to him.

There is a reason that next summer's class of FAs is so great: because Bosh/Wade/James all wanted to get one more (long-term) contract under the current/good CBA, rather than become free agents in the following summer where no CBA will be in place.

Ed O.

An excellent well thought out post.

 

[maxiep]

God, what a bunch of nancy-boy drama queens our fanbase has turned into. It's a negotiation. Let it play out.

 

[PapaG]

God, what a bunch of nancy-boy drama queens our fanbase has turned into. It's a negotiation. Let it play out.

I love drama-laden and pejorative-filled posts complaining about the drama-laden board. It's so...ironic.

 

[RR7]

What they ask for is irrelevant to me. Players ask for more than they get all the time.

A market is set by what a selling price is (or, in this case, contract dollars), not what one side or the other wants.

Ed O.

So are you just completely ignorant of the situations of the past "dictating" this market? It's in the teams benefit to give the 5 year deal, as opposed to the 3. Those players chose 3 year deals to get to their 3rd, and much bigger contract, as soon as possible. Them signing for 3 years doesn't "set the market" for Roy to only get 3 years. I don't know if you are arguing just to take an opposite side of a discussion, or if you truly believe this. I'm hoping the former.

 

[PapaG]

So are you just completely ignorant of the situations of the past "dictating" this market? It's in the teams benefit to give the 5 year deal, as opposed to the 3. Those players chose 3 year deals to get to their 3rd, and much bigger contract, as soon as possible. Them signing for 3 years doesn't "set the market" for Roy to only get 3 years. I don't know if you are arguing just to take an opposite side of a discussion, or if you truly believe this. I'm hoping the former.

Plus he refuses to consider that Bargnani's 5 year extension is much more applicable in terms of the current market of that rookie class. James signed a 3 year max deal!!!

 

[Stevenson]

I think it has to do with salary cap flexibility. Why are we under the cap right now? Because KP purposefully structured several contracts to end this summer.

In 4 years, our window is wide open. Maybe we need a piece. If Roy and LA are maxed out, too bad, but if both have contracts that end that summer, we have cap room again, and them we re-sign them.

4 years helps the team more.

 

[PapaG]

I think it has to do with salary cap flexibility. Why are we under the cap right now? Because KP purposefully structured several contracts to end this summer.

In 4 years, our window is wide open. Maybe we need a piece. If Roy and LA are maxed out, too bad, but if both have contracts that end that summer, we have cap room again, and them we re-sign them.

4 years helps the team more.

Does it? What about next summer, when Oden/Rudy/Bayless/Batum can be extended. Are they going to get three year deals? Also, it's true LMA and Roy could be resigned, but after being lowballed on years, they both may be willing as UFA's to move elsewhere. What makes you think Portland would offer a max at that stage, and I personally am concerned about next year, and the year after, and the year after. I couldn't care less about 5 years from now in terms of "cap flexibility" that won't matter.

 

[alex42083]

I think it has to do with salary cap flexibility. Why are we under the cap right now? Because KP purposefully structured several contracts to end this summer.

In 4 years, our window is wide open. Maybe we need a piece. If Roy and LA are maxed out, too bad, but if both have contracts that end that summer, we have cap room again, and them we re-sign them.

4 years helps the team more.

I don't think we'd have cap room at all. Wouldn't Roy and Aldridge have significant cap holds then unless we renounce them, which is very unlikely.
And hopefully in four years, Roy, LA and Oden will have developed big time that we don't need a big-time piece to add and that'd be a hell of a lot of money to pay those 3 guys, plus another significant piece.
And that's why they created mid-level exceptions so teams over the cap can add pieces to the roster. I think this is the last time in a very long time that we'll have cap room like this.

 

[RR7]

Bogut, 5 years. Granger, 5 years. F. Garcia, 5 years. Bynum 4 years. Weird market. Doesn't seem to be setting on any standard whatsoever. Dwight Howard-5, Okafor-5, This can continue.

 

[BBert]

Is Vulcan behind the "Roy Situation?" I don't think so. Roy's agent is behind the "Roy Situation." The "situation" being getting certain fans all riled up. It's called negotiating in the press. I think julius also has it right: There are many other things to consider in a contract than simply it's 'length and girth,' such as Roy's long-term health. I think the Blazers have legitimate reasons to worry about his wheels coming off.

 

[alex42083]

Is Vulcan behind the "Roy Situation?" I don't think so. Roy's agent is behind the "Roy Situation." The "situation" being getting certain fans all riled up. It's called negotiating in the press. I think julius also has it right: There are many other things to consider in a contract than simply it's 'length and girth,' such as Roy's long-term health. I think the Blazers have legitimate reasons to worry about his wheels coming off.

We might as well trade the guy then while his value is high and his health is good before it deteriorates.

 

[Idog1976]

Well one is a 5 year extension, where the other is a 5 year contract. If they signed Hedo to five years, and Roy to a 4 year extension, they would be free agents in the same summer.

See that's an interesting point. It's almost like Penn/KP are looking at 4 years from now FA. Who is in that list does anyone know?

 

[<-=*PdX*=->]

Blazers fans need to chill the fuck out and get over the whole Seattle thing. The team isn't moving, and Allen is not going to sell a team that has been built up to be a contender for many years... The contract situation is going to be fine, this is the way contracts work and the way both sides get what they want. Roy is going to get his max deal... RELAX.

 

[BBert]

We might as well trade the guy then while his value is high and his health is good before it deteriorates.

LOL. I'd only trade BR for Chris Paul. And that's not very likely. Although, if we get a starting quality PF, it's worth considering getting Paul for LaMarcus.

As far as this contract brouhaha, it's funny how easily Brandon and his agent are playing the fans like this. It will get done. No worries.

 

[Ed O]

So are you just completely ignorant of the situations of the past "dictating" this market? It's in the teams benefit to give the 5 year deal, as opposed to the 3. Those players chose 3 year deals to get to their 3rd, and much bigger contract, as soon as possible. Them signing for 3 years doesn't "set the market" for Roy to only get 3 years. I don't know if you are arguing just to take an opposite side of a discussion, or if you truly believe this. I'm hoping the former.

*sigh*

First of all, there were no three year deals signed. They were four year deals, where the fourth year was an player option. The teams were/remain on the hook for four years.

Secondly, I find it hilarious that you're telling me (and, indirectly, the Blazers) that the team is "better off" for having a five year deal rather than a four year deal. The Blazers clearly don't agree with you.

Nice try, though.

Ed O.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

Bogut, 5 years. Granger, 5 years. F. Garcia, 5 years. Bynum 4 years. Weird market. Doesn't seem to be setting on any standard whatsoever. Dwight Howard-5, Okafor-5, This can continue.

Dwight Howard is an example, along with Carmelo, of max years, max money. I did not mention him previously, so thanks for bringing him up.

The rest of the guys aren't max money so the number of years they got isn't very relevant to the Roy discussion, although it will be with Aldridge.

Ed O.

 

[Minstrel]

Is Vulcan behind the "Roy Situation?" I don't think so. Roy's agent is behind the "Roy Situation." The "situation" being getting certain fans all riled up. It's called negotiating in the press.

Yes, exactly. It's strange how many people are taking rather standard contract posturing in the media so seriously. Kobe actually talked deal with the Clippers to strengthen his position with the Lakers. In all sports (at least the ones I follow, NBA, MLB, NFL), players who pretty much everyone expects to sign with their original team often give ambivalent comments in the media about the negotiations, to show the team that they shouldn't be taken for granted.

Roy is keeping his position strong. Pritchard is staying nonchalant. There's nothing particularly unusual going on. Is it technically possible that behind the scenes, there is actual conflict that may drive the two sides apart permanently? Sure, anything is possible. But that's certainly not the likely case nor should it be the default assumption.

 

[PapaG]

Is Vulcan behind the "Roy Situation?" I don't think so. Roy's agent is behind the "Roy Situation." The "situation" being getting certain fans all riled up. It's called negotiating in the press. I think julius also has it right: There are many other things to consider in a contract than simply it's 'length and girth,' such as Roy's long-term health. I think the Blazers have legitimate reasons to worry about his wheels coming off.

Then look to dump him now, or don't offer him any long-term contract and go for a QO next year.

Roy is at fault for wanting to stay in Portland and he's breaking down.

 

[PapaG]

Dwight Howard is an example, along with Carmelo, of max years, max money. I did not mention him previously, so thanks for bringing him up.

The rest of the guys aren't max money so the number of years they got isn't very relevant to the Roy discussion, although it will be with Aldridge.

Ed O.

Keep ignoring the Bargnani signing, which is actually relevant to this market since the same CBA factors are included in the negotiations.

 

[Minstrel]

Then look to dump him now, or don't offer him any long-term contract and go for a QO next year.

Or offer him a contract but negotiate due to his risk factor.

 

[Minstrel]

Keep ignoring the Bargnani signing, which is actually relevant to this market since the same CBA factors are included in the negotiations.

Okay. So offer Roy a 5 year $50 million deal? I'm sure he'd love that.

Considering Roy is far better and Bargnani wasn't offered a max deal, I fail to see how it's "relevant."

 

[PapaG]

Or offer him a contract but negotiate due to his risk factor.

What's his risk factor 5 years from now over 6 years from now? I want specifics on why paying him the max for four years is a good idea due to his "risk factor", but paying him for 5 years is a bad idea.

 

[PapaG]

Okay. So offer Roy a 5 year $50 million deal? I'm sure he'd love that.

Considering Roy is far better and Bargnani wasn't offered a max deal, I fail to see how it's "relevant."

If you can't see how a 5 year commitment and signing of a much-lesser player from Roy's draft class is "relevant", I have to question your understanding on how setting a market value actually works in negotiations. Bargnani is much more relevant to Roy's market value than whatever James and Wade decided to do years ago.

 

[Minstrel]

What's his risk factor 5 years from now over 6 years from now? I want specifics on why paying him the max for four years is a good idea due to his "risk factor", but paying him for 5 years is a bad idea.

Fewer years = lower risk. It's not that he's especially more likely to be injured in year 5, it's that if he gets injured at any time in the next four years, the team is on the hook for less time.

Roy's injury history adds some risk. Reducing the number of committed big-money years reduces risk.

 

[Minstrel]

If you can't see how a 5 year commitment and signing of a much-lesser player from Roy's draft class is "relevant", I have to question your understanding on how setting a market value actually works in negotiations. Bargnani is much more relevant to Roy's market value than whatever James and Wade decided to do years ago.

So, Portland should offer Roy $50 million for 5 years?

It's relevant in that it's the same year. It's not relevant in that they are players of very different ability and different injury histories. Ultimately, I think comparing players on the same, or more similar, levels of ability is much more relevant.

 

[PapaG]

Fewer years = lower risk. It's not that he's especially more likely to be injured in year 5, it's that if he gets injured at any time in the next four years, the team is on the hook for less time.

Roy's injury history adds some risk. Reducing the number of committed big-money years reduces risk.

You mentioned "risk factor". Why sign anyone to a five year deal, then?

 

[PapaG]

So, Portland should offer Roy $50 million for 5 years?

It's relevant in that it's the same year. It's not relevant in that they are players of very different ability and different injury histories. Ultimately, I think comparing players on the same, or more similar, levels of ability is much more relevant.

Why do you keep posting this? Ed's opinion was that offering 4 years was a smart move due to future CBA problems. Roy's agent can point to Bargnani and call bullshit. "If Bargnani's worth 5 years/$50 million, why won't Portland commit to my client for 5 years?"

Again, I question your knowledge on what sets a market value.

 

[Minstrel]

You mentioned "risk factor". Why sign anyone to a five year deal, then?

Because some players are lower risk. Every player has their own level of risk due to injury and possibility of regression, even LeBron James. But some players are higher risk and some are lower risk. Thus, in each case, you have to evaluate that risk and weight against the benefits of locking a player up for a longer period of time.

 

[Minstrel]

Why do you keep posting this? Ed's opinion was that offering 4 years was a smart move due to future CBA problems. Roy's agent can point to Bargnani and call bullshit. "If Bargnani's worth 5 years/$50 million, why won't Portland commit to my client for 5 years?"

"Because Toronto is risking much less money over those five years. Presumably, you want a lot more money (deservedly), so there's more risk to us in a five year deal."

Again, I question your knowledge on what sets a market value.

You don't know how much that hurts.

 

[PapaG]

Because some players are lower risk. Every player has their own level of risk due to injury and possibility of regression, even LeBron James. But some players are higher risk and some are lower risk. Thus, in each case, you have to evaluate that risk and weight against the benefits of locking a player up for a longer period of time.

Whatever. Way to evade the question on what makes Roy a solid 5 years commitment, but not a 6 year commitment.